Federalism/States CP
Federalism/States CP 1
Shell 3
Uniqueness/Links 6
Generic 7
Court Rulings 10
A2: Health Care 14
Roads/Bridges 15
National Infrastructure Bank 17
Inland Waterways 18
Link Helpers 19
Zero-Sum 20
A2: Drop in the Bucket 21
Impacts 23
Modeling 24
War 26
Trade 27
Democracy 29
Democide 32
Secessionism 34
Russia 36
Liberty 38
Aff Answers 39
Non-Unique 40
Fism is Flexible/No Link 42
A2 Modeling 44
A2: Russian Fism 47
A2: Secessionism 49
A2: Zero Sum 51
Economic Decline Kills Fism 52
States CP 53
1nc 54
Solvency 58
Generic 59
Hydrogen Fuel 63
Private Investment 65
Federal Government Models the States 66
Climate/Environment 67
Highways 68
Funding Mechanisms 69
SIBs 70
PPPs solve 72
A2 Permutation 74
A2: Congressional Rollback 78
A2: Congressional Authorization 79
CP Avoids Ptix 80
Aff Answers 82
Perm 83
Perm Key to Warming/Environment 85
Federal Investment key to Private Interest 87
A2: SIB 90
A2: PPPs 91
States are Broke 93
No solvency—Private Interest 95
No Solvency—Patchwork 96
CP Links to Politics 99
Shell Recent trends in the house and senate prove transportation infrastructure is moving towards devolution—plan reverses the trend
McGuigan, 2k11 (Patrick, “Transportation Federalism”, Capital Beat OK, http://capitolbeatok.com/reports/transportation-federalism-and-flexibility-proposed-in-new-bill-from-coburn-lankford)
A bill giving greater authority and control over transportation funding was introduced in Congress yesterday, with U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn of Muskogee and U.S. Rep. James Lankford of Oklahoma City as leading proponents. Governor Mary Fallin and Oklahoma Secretary of Transportation Gary Ridley applauded the proposal, as did a representative of the state's leading free market “think tank.” According to a press release from advocates in the nation's capital, “the State Transportation Flexibility Act that would allow state transportation departments to opt out of the Federal-Aid Highway and Mass Transit programs. Instead, these states would be able to manage and spend the gas tax revenue collected within their state on transportation projects without federal mandates or restrictions.” A total of of 14 members of the Senate and 24 members of the House of Representatives have joined as co-sponsors. Besides the pair of Oklahomans, supporters included Sens. John McCain of Arizona, David Vitter of Louisiana, Orrin Hatch of Utah, John Cornyn of Texas, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Daniel Coats of Indiana, Mike Lee of Utah, and Rob Portman of Ohio. Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona is advocating for the bill in Congress, alongside Lankford. In Oklahoma, a vice president at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs (OCPA) immediately applauded the bill's introduction. In his statement, sent to CapitolBeatOK, Sen. Coburn said, “Washington’s addiction to spending has bankrupted the Highway Trust Fund. For years, lower-priority projects like earmarks have crowded out important priorities in our states, such as repairing crumbling roads and bridges. “Instead of burdening states and micromanaging local transportation decisions from Washington, states like Oklahoma should be free to choose how their transportation dollars are spent. I have no doubt that Oklahoma’s Transportation Director Gary Ridley will do a much better job deciding how Oklahoma’s transportation dollars are spent than bureaucrats and politicians in Washington.” Lankford applauded Coburn's leadership in the matter, observing, “This has been one of my top priorities since coming to Congress, and I’m happy to join Senator Coburn in this effort. This bill is a giant step for states by increasing transportation flexibility while improving efficiency. “By allowing states to opt-out of the federal bureaucracy, they will be able to take more control of their own resources. It will free Oklahoma to keep our own federal gas taxes and to fund new projects at our own discretion.” Joel Kintsel, executive vice president at OCPA, told CapitolBeatOK, "I am so proud of the leadership shown by Senator Coburn and Congressman Lankford. Hopefully, this is the beginning of a broader effort by Congress to return to federalism and withdraw from areas of activity rightfully belonging to the States.” Sen. McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee for president, said, “As a Federalist, I have long advocated that states should retain the right to keep the revenue from gas taxes paid by drivers in their own state. This bill would allow for this to happen and prevent Arizonans from returning their hard earned money to Washington. Arizonans have always received 95 cents or less for every dollar they pay federal gas taxes. This continues to be unacceptable, and for that reason I am a proud supported of the State Highway Flexibility Act.” Sen. Vitter asserted, “It’s very apparent how badly Congress can mismanage tax dollars, especially the Highway Trust fund which has needed to be bailed out three times since 2008. The states know their transportation needs better than Congress, so let’s put them in the driver’s seat to manage their own gas tax.” Hatch contended, “The federal government’s one-size-fits all transportation policies and mandates are wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and causing inexcusable delays in the construction of highways, bridges and roads in Utah and across the nation. Sen. Cornyn said the Lone Star State can manage public transportation spending just fine, and the bill, “will provide Texas more flexibility to make transportation decisions locally and encourage innovative solutions to addressing our transportation infrastructure needs. Kintsel, whose areas of focus for OCPA include constitutional and other legal policy issues, said, “Federalism is an indispensable check and balance between the States and the federal government and remains an important feature of our constitutional system. Unless it is a power expressly reserved by the Constitution to the federal government, Congress should not attempt to control the decisions of individual states. The more local decision making is eroded by an overbearing national government, the less freedom and ingenuity survives in states and local communities. In this instance, Oklahoma leaders will know how to use these transportation dollars far more efficiently than anyone outside of Oklahoma.
Impact is global war --- U.S. federalism is modeled worldwide, solving conflict
Calabresi ’95 (Steven G., Assistant Prof – Northwestern U., Michigan Law Review, Lexis)
First, the rules of constitutional federalism should be enforced because federalism is a good thing, and it is the best and most important structural feature of the U.S. Constitution. Second, the political branches cannot be relied upon to enforce constitutional federalism, notwithstanding the contrary writings of Professor Jesse Choper. Third, the Supreme Court is institutionally competent to enforce constitutional federalism. Fourth, the Court is at least as qualified to act in this area as it is in the Fourteenth Amendment area. And, fifth, the doctrine of stare [*831] decisis does not pose a barrier to the creation of any new, prospectively applicable Commerce Clause case law. The conventional wisdom is that Lopez is nothing more than a flash in the pan. 232 Elite opinion holds that the future of American constitutional law will involve the continuing elaboration of the Court's national codes on matters like abortion regulation, pornography, rules on holiday displays, and rules on how the states should conduct their own criminal investigations and trials. Public choice theory suggests many reasons why it is likely that the Court will continue to pick on the states and give Congress a free ride. But, it would be a very good thing for this country if the Court decided to surprise us and continued on its way down the Lopez path. Those of us who comment on the Court's work, whether in the law reviews or in the newspapers, should encourage the Court to follow the path on which it has now embarked. The country and the world would be a better place if it did. We have seen that a desire for both international and devolutionary federalism has swept across the world in recent years. To a significant extent, this is due to global fascination with and emulation of our own American federalism success story. The global trend toward federalism is an enormously positive development that greatly increases the likelihood of future peace, free trade, economic growth, respect for social and cultural diversity, and protection of individual human rights. It depends for its success on the willingness of sovereign nations to strike federalism deals in the belief that those deals will be kept. 233 The U.S. Supreme Court can do its part to encourage the future striking of such deals by enforcing vigorously our own American federalism deal. Lopez could be a first step in that process, if only the Justices and the legal academy would wake up to the importance of what is at stake.
Share with your friends: |